Editorial: A wrong reading of a right

Thursday

Jun 26, 2008 at 12:01 AMJun 26, 2008 at 3:13 AM

More than 200 years of evolving law has shown that like many other constitutional rights, the right to bear arms is not absolute and can, must and should be governed by the jurisdictions who are most impacted.

The Patriot Ledger

It is now black-letter law: The Second Amendment protects the right of citizens to keep firearms in their home.

But the decision Thursday by the Supreme Court, the first time the justices have made a definitive interpretation of the controversial 27-word constitutional amendment, will not end the debate.

Indeed, early indications are the 5-4 ruling has opened the door for numerous challenges from gun rights advocates to well-reasoned local laws, including some here in Massachusetts, designed by people who have a better sense than five black-robed justices about the impact of unfettered access to firearms in their communities.

Not only did the court overturn the 32-year-old ban on handgun ownership in Washington, D.C., the ruling declared the requirement for gun locks and disabling weapons in homes as a safety measure to be unconstitutional.

Although Justice Antonin Scalia, arguably the court’s most brilliant mind who authored the majority opinion, claimed the ruling will have little effect on laws already on the books, several gun organizations such as the National Rifle Association announced they would use the ruling to challenge handgun restrictions in San Francisco, Chicago and several suburbs.

It is hard to imagine that a lower court will not defer to Scalia’s precedent-setting assertion that “it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct” in overturning restrictions and bans.

In one of the two dissenting opinions, Justice Stephen G. Breyer most astutely declared the court has paved the way for challenges to every kind of ban, not just handguns, despite the majority’s insistence nothing of the sort would occur.

“(L)itigation over the course of many years, or the mere specter of such litigation, threatens to leave cities without effective protection against gun violence and accidents during that time,” Breyer wrote.

We support responsible gun ownership for law-abiding citizens and acknowledge there is an inherent right to possessing and using firearms for self-defense, hunting, target shooting and other lawful activities.

But more than 200 years of evolving law has shown that like many other constitutional rights, the right to bear arms is not absolute and can, must and should be governed by the jurisdictions who are most impacted.

Urban areas with higher criminal activities need far different approaches to gun control than rural districts where children are brought up using firearms. Scalia and his four demagogic colleagues failed to understand that and the result will be much less safe, not more, homes and communities.